Talk:Auroville

from the content...

‘The Auroville land is owned by no-one in particular and is held by the Government of India and the Sri Aurobindo Society’.

GOI’s role is understandable. But how SAS??????

---

I 've myself edited the content as a follow up to my earlier question.

Anarchist structures

Aren't the structures in this city very similar to the ones in Anarchosyndicalism? helohe (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to add coordinates properly so i'll just post them here so that someone else can add them.

12° 0'8.80"N, 79°48'53.76"E

Quit Notes

I'm sorry, but could someone explain how the Quit Note system works? The article seems to claim that Auroville is "achieving world peace, international understanding, and the unity of mankind" through asking foreigners to leave..?--TurabianNights 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Turabian. A "quit notice" is issued by Indian immigration to any non-Indian who has violated some Indian law or has misbehaved. In Auroville this has occurred, but upon explanation by the incriminated parties, the notices were cancelled and only two foreign members of Auroville have actually had to leave India over Auroville's 38 year history. The person writing about "quit notes" is attempting to defame Auroville with lies. Really, too bad.

Aurodon, a resident of Auroville

NPOV

I am highly wary of deleting all criticism entirely, particularly as it related to free speech. Can we reach a consensus to include both the praise and the criticism? Otherwise I'm afraid the NPOV notice will have to stay.--TurabianNights 05:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's baaaack! Can we not keep both points of view in this article? Anybody?--TurabianNights 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Turiya, a former member of the Auroville Council who resigned due to the threats of getting a Quit Notice, wrote on AVNet:

I believe that Avnet has been created when the Aurovilians have decided to censor themselves in the News, knowing that what they wrote in them was viewed by people everywhere in India and could be used against AV and some of its members; they have decided also to self-censor in their Resident Assembly and general meetings, for the same reasons (what people said there was immediately reported to Delhi and to any other place around AV); there only remained Avnet for those who wanted to discuss freely about what they wanted. I also feel that there should be a place where people should be able to say – but they should also learn to say things in a more acceptable way, after all human beings have a sensitivity – what they feel is the truth without being accused of being racist or defamatory. It seems that this safe place does not exist anymore. It is either the court case or the quit notice.

Okay, I've re-edited to include both views. (Neither of which, I might add, are cited in any meaningful way). Does anyone have a problem with this? If so, can we work out a solution here on the talk page? Meaningless edit wars get us nowhere. --TurabianNights 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we move all the text about what Auroville "should be" or "is supposed to be" to a separate section (e.g."Auroville's ideals"), and leave the facts about what Auroville IS nowadays?

The current version sounds like a propaganda, I am sorry to say that. Babujee 16:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It totally does, though! The creation of a section on Auroville's ideals is a good idea. Would you like to do the honors?--TurabianNights 16:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

How about leaving subjective opinions about Auroville out of the main article, and create another article called "Auroville: Views and Opinions" or something? That could be a place for people to praise/vent & discuss it in general.

We could create a "Criticism" section, but only if we are all agreed to keep opinions out of the "society" section. I suspect not all of our frequent editors are willing to do that, but I guess that's what we've got the revert feature for...--TurabianNights 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinions

Agree with above. The Criticism section seems to be an invention by someone with a grievance and should instead be labeled opinion. It's easily debunked and its inclusion makes the entire article suspect.

Paragraph 1 - There is no censorship. Historically and to the present, residents can and have done harm to Auroville by publicizing their opinions, unilaterally bringing in outside agencies, or involving third parties. The outreach group's purpose is other than stated in the "criticism" section and it has no enforcement ability. When a visitor suggested that they try to regulate and facilitate media contact and to screen media content for accuracy like any other institution in the world, he was told that "[Auroville residents]would not agree to it." The nefarious and censored "News & Notes" is in reality a xeroxed event schedule. There are additionally at least 30-40 regular publications with the "Auroville" imprint. There is no overseeing authority as to what can be published.

Dear Earlgray, before you publish your fantasies, why don't you just ask about these things Paul Vincent (paulvincent@auroville.org.in), Auroville's former Police Liason Officer, who has been living in Auroville since its BEGINNING, and who is (like many other Aurovilians) currently denied access to Auroville's AVNet? AVPaulette 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 is patently false. Not one assertion is true.

Paragraph 3 is speculation bordering on the conspiratorial. High crime rate? Compared to what - the local Tamil Nadu area? Percapita; by number or severity of crimes committed, it's Impossible.

"Auroville is supposed to adhere to a life free of violence, for the sake of world peace, international understanding, and the unity of mankind." Author speculation not Auroville policy. Not a coherent statement.

"This unity has so far been achieved by the GOI's issuing Quit India Notes to all non-Indian Aurovilians who are in disagreements with the Indian members of Auroville."

Pure speculation as to motive of GOI.

80% of foreign Aurovilians who have been in Auroville for over 5 years have received Quit Notes.

A potentially verifiable statistic. No citation.

Statistics can be easily confirmed with Auroville's Residents Service.AVPaulette 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"This forms part of the Government of India's strategy according to which all foreigners have to quit India after they created any immovable property in Auroville that can be transferred to the Indian Aurovilians free of cost."

Does this author claim to know the motives of the Government?

~Earlgray

If one analyzes the statistics (ask Auroville's Housing Group) about WHO the houses of the foreign Aurovilians have been transferred to, you will see that there has been a clear tendency.AVPaulette 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A trend does not make a government policy. Its a conspiracty theory, ie. opinion... let's call it that. Is doesn't seem to be relevant to the article. I propose we make an op-ed section where this kind of stuff can stay if people are intent on creatiing a buzz on this page.

Earlgray 16:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is really a hodge-podge created by a number of editors over a number of months. I don't believe any of us currently editing, save one anonymous POV-pusher, have made any significant textual additions to the current text. It would be greatly helpful if you could find sources for everything you've said here, as we could then include it in the article. I don't think it would be productive to add or delete any more until we have hard sources for what we're doing. Additionally, if you could explain the concept of these Quit Notes, I think we'd all be grateful. As you can see further up the talk page, I am rather flummoxed by that myself.--TurabianNights 01:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We should delete opinions that have no defence masquerading as fact, then allow changes which can be verified. Anyone can invent a so-called criticism. The only POV I can see is someone uninformed on the topic who seems intent on forcing falsehood to remain on the page. Earlgray

FYI- Quit notes is apparently what the Government of India uses to enforce it's visa policy. Auroville is not the Govt of India and doesn't have any influence on it or on the issuing quit notes.

I don't think there's any need for hostility here - we both genuinely want to make this a better article, so I'd prefer to believe we are on the same team. What I am saying is that because we have no sources for either position in this article to date, I am uncomfortable deleting the criticisms (which have been here much longer than I have). I am perfectly happy to let them go, but only after I see published proof to the contrary. Surely you must understand my anxiety, given that the criticisms deal with free speech violations. You say I am uninformed, and I am honestly asking you to please inform me. Give me a website, a journal article, anything. All I ask for is sources - if we were to delete every "opinion masking as fact," we currently would have no article because we have no sources telling us that what is written here is not opinion. I want to work together! I've been trying to do a lot of research on Auroville to supply these citations but can find very little that does not come directly from the Auroville official website - you must know of other routes to pursue, since you've got all that info above.--TurabianNights 02:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear TurabianNights, you can easily verify all the info here by contacting the relevant Auroville's groups.AVPaulette 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all certainly worth looking into. I am unfortunately quite busy with another WikiProject and am a little burnt out on Auroville at present, but I will keep this in mind for the future. Thanks, --TurabianNights 03:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I will try and do some research on this Quit Note stuff. Could you try and get some cited facts on censorship? We can meet back and discuss our findings.

Read "News and Notes" of 2004. You will find that after one incident involving Olivier (who got a Quit Note for publishing one's views), the "News and Notes" STOPPED being issued for a while. It restarted with a statement that "no controversial statements will be published".AVPaulette 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please address my concerns before making this edit again? I don't feel I'm being unreasonable here.--TurabianNights 02:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

See a recent message published on AVNet by Turiya (a former member of the Auroville Council who resigned due to the threats of getting a Quit Notice): I believe that Avnet has been created when the Aurovilians have decided to censor themselves in the News, knowing that what they wrote in them was viewed by people everywhere in India and could be used against AV and some of its members; they have decided also to self-censor in their Resident Assembly and general meetings, for the same reasons (what people said there was immediately reported to Delhi and to any other place around AV); there only remained Avnet for those who wanted to discuss freely about what they wanted. I also feel that there should be a place where people should be able to say – but they should also learn to say things in a more acceptable way, after all human beings have a sensitivity – what they feel is the truth without being accused of being racist or defamatory. It seems that this safe place does not exist anymore. It is either the court case or the quit notice. Venkat av 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As it is not possible to prove a negative, ie: there is no censorship in Auroville, I won't waste any time trying. The oness must lie with the person who asserts something to show some evidence of its existence. In the case of censorship, that should be easy. One example would prove its existence. If it is in fact the policy of the organization, then the evidence should be abundant.

Re-posting falsehood without any proof is exactly the same as posting it originally. Accountability lies with the person posting the information and claiming it as fact. Verify your assertions. ~Earlgray

As I've explained before, I am not the person asserting anything - I am merely trying to hold the article together. I've had two POV-pushers editing here for the last two weeks, so I'm sure you can understand how wary I am of these sorts of changes. I'm up to my limit for reverts today, I think, and with you around now, I'm not sure there'd be much point anyway. I am going to continue to research sources for all parts of this article, and I hope you will do the same.--TurabianNights 03:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you somehow appointed to hold the article together?

By no means. But in the absence of more stringent maintenance, I found myself doing something akin to that. Now that there seem to be far more editors here than when I started, I am less worried about that.--TurabianNights 04:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrections

I have corrected the Population and Society section which mis-dentified the number of journals available in Auroville and also misrepresented the policy of the Outreach Group. However now that the information is correct it no longer seems relevant to the section. Rather than delete it which might cause someone to revert to the incorrect information, I will move it to a new section.Earlgray 05:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Grievances

Heres a suggestion for getting a more neutral POV. There are many emotionally charged words and sentences scattered throughout the article in seemingly random fashion, not relevant to the topic, many not relevant to the adjoining sentences. Someone(s) obviously wants this information public because it keeps being re-pasted. Perhaps that stuff could be tagged somehow - bolded or italicized. Once that's done it should be obvious what is a candidate for future moving to a Grievances section. Earlgray 16:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that it's even relevant to the article, but a recent check revealed that the board is more diverse than this recurring statement affirms: "Auroville's internal authority, Auroville Council, consists exclusively of Tamil members of Auroville." I have removed it again. Earlgray 18:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you email to avcouncil@auroville.org.in and ask what the current membership of the AV Council is, and then email each member and ask him if he is indeed a member of the AV Council?

(As far as I know, all non-Indian members of the Council resigned a few months ago after a racial conflict inside the Council. )Tamilll 03:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tamilll, thanks for talking. This is not personally to you, but something I would like to bring up for the general editing discussion.

I'd like to reflect a moment on whether the information and the numerous statements that keep coming and going in this article are really essential to this exciting experiment of encyclopedic collaboration - Wikipedia. Among other things, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of trivia, or a soapbox for opinions, according to its own guidelines. Too bad if some people feel there's censorship and racism and an attempt at a take-over by the GOI... even if we could verify the veracity of these to everyone's satisfaction in less than a hundred wiki pages, the percieved offence and grievance is merely an example of process that every large institution is continually going through in order to maintain and preserve it's identity and interest. I think only history will prove or disprove these "truths". Since these things are not what Auroville is striving to be about, and since only a few specialized persons have any dealing with them, I am suggesting that they are not what someone wants to know who is interested in studying, visiting and learning about Auroville from an article. Let them read a little about it, then go to Auroville and find out soon enough whether or not this stuff is occuring.

Cries of alarm and hurt belong on a different forum, where people with the possibility of doing something about them can be contacted and proper forces marshalled. Collaboration, something that IS relevant to a discussion on Auroville, does not mean one person constantly stamps his/her opinions over the contributions of other people until everyone else gives up and moves on or cowers in submission. Nice example, that, especially from someone claiming to understand Auroville.

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. Let us hope that at the minimum, a tiny little article about Auroville, the city of human unity, can reflect that kind of unity. Earlgray 05:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Even more than all this, however, I'd like to stress the importance of verifiability. In theory, Wikipedia is not concerned with "the truth" - it is concerned with what can be confirmed with citations. This is currently a problem with both "sides" on this article, and one I hope we will all be able to resolve with solid research. I still strongly believe that if there is legitimate criticism of the community, it belongs on this page. Wikipedia is not about unity - it is about being informed. However, the criticisms do need to be verifiable, and really DO need to be discussed on the talk page, just like I'd like to see everything else discussed here.--TurabianNights 06:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, all new editors!

Hello all, I am delighted that so many people have taken interest in the Auroville page! However, I would like to suggest that instead of warring with reverts, we discuss changes to the page here before we make them. People seem to have a lot of different opinions about what is or is not true about Auroville; it's great to have debate, but I'd like to remind everyone that it is better to have it here on the talk page than on the subject page itself. That's what talk pages are for. In addition, I think we should all take care to remember that Wikipedia is most concerned with what is verifiable. This means we should ideally have sources for all statements made on the page. Please also keep in mind that Wikipedia does not allow original research. This means all sources cited must be reliable, authoritative published sources. I realize this might be something of a bother if there are concerns about free speech and the only published sources are produced by Auroville itself, but I would prefer we discussed these difficulties here before participating in needless edit wars. Agreed?--TurabianNights 04:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi TurabianNights. A random sample of 50 "white" people living in Auroville has turned up no one who works in the Indian film industry. There are also many "white" people who work in reforestation, many who work in the healing arts, maintenance, manufacturing, yoga instruction, administration, fundraising, education, village interaction, publishing, youth support, Tamil cultural support, medical services, music, dance, literature, performance, academics, physical education, security, and probably as many different activities as there are people. If (as it seems) we simply must include the rather lame statement in the Economy section, that "many white people work in the Indian film industry" let's include a broader cross section. (And let's hope the film people don't have to commute to Mumbai) Earlgray 05:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a published source for all this info? (And seriously, what a commute!)--TurabianNights 06:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes-There are several. I should be able to reference them by tomorrow. Earlgray 06:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Earlgray. You write that "A random sample of 50 "white" people living in Auroville has turned up no one who works in the Indian film industry". Kindly note that it was specifically stated that it is only the low-income white Aurovilians who illegally (without a work permit) act in films made in Madras and Hyderabad. Please understand that this article is supposed to reflect the facts whether they comply with the current Indian laws or not. Venkat av 04:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Venkat. I don't yet understand what this information reveals about Auroville that requires inclusion in a general article about the community. Of course it may occur, but it doesn't seem to be very widespread and it's certainly not AV policy. There are probably people who litter, too, but we don't need to mention that. I prefer to document the many more important and progressive things people are doing there which are in line with the Auroville mission and with the aims of most of its residents. [As for the "white" people thing, not everyone understands that non-Indian foreigners is meant by that, and I think tht distinction should be very clear.]Earlgray 06:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I suppose I should clarify: are there any NPOV published sources for this info? I see today that you've added an Auroville-published reference, which is fine, but may not exactly be NPOV where matters of censorship are concerned, which seems to be a recurring issue.--TurabianNights 04:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking however I think we should be as concerned with sources by those alleging censorship. I notice they have cited nothing besides opinion and anecdote. The fact that there are numerous Journals and Newsletters as well as web pages on the Auroville website] speaks to point that censorship might not be the issue it is alleged to be.Earlgray 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Free Speech Soapbox

I created this area in hopes of solving the free speech and other issues.

My main concern, as I've intimated in the past, is that if there really are problems with censorship at Auroville, we'd need to find a source on that that doesn't come from Auroville's press. I don't know first-hand one way or the other, though of course that would violate the no original research policy.  :/ --TurabianNights 07:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The individuals alleging censorship are not citing sources other than their own "original research" in the form of anecdotal evidence. Perhaps the soapbox will allow more than one POV to express without compromising the neutrality and sense of the article.Earlgray 07:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the quit notice information to the Free Speech section to try to provide a balanced context to the whole topic of quit notes. If we must cite court records i'm sure it can be done "sigh", but I still doubt that the 'free speech, quit note, crime rate' information in the context presented is relevant to a neutral article about a community of nearly 2000 individuals.Earlgray 17:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Population and Social Concerns

I created this section to try and bring some logic to the narrative. That sentence about the board being comprised of 100% Tamils has no context and seems to border on racism. Perhaps the person who keeps putting it in would be so kind as to elaborate their concerns about the racial component of the board.

Democracy

In the article it says "from democracies and socialist societies". That's a bit american, to oppose democracy with socialism is somewhat uneducated. 83.70.247.123 05:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Matrimandir photo addition

Added Matrimandir photo from here[1].Thought it would serve the purpose of elaborating the matrimandir section in auroville. Ankithreya (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon editor reverts

Over the past few months, anonymous and newly created accounts have been replacing the sourced text of the article with an unsourced, propaganda-like version. This should stop -- please review WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Fireplace (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I have reverted edits which placed too much emphasis on the BBC controversy in the lead, and restored most of the information to the 'controversy' section, attempting an eve-handed presentation. Also restored other well-meaning edits, which would profit from further cites. JNW (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the material entirely. It is pure tabloid stuff—completely unencyclopedic. If anyone thinks that it must be mentioned. They should:

1. Take note that this is not really about Auroville. It has to do with the actions of an individual and media sensationalism.
2. Read WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE, & WP:NOT
3. Make brief mention of the incident (one paragraph would be more than enough IMO)
4. Omit mention of it in the lead.

However, I remain skeptical that this should be mentioned at all in this article. Sunray (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, my skepticism has been proven unfounded. The current paragraph on the BBC controversy, written by Davidbrake and tweaked by Everest2424 seems entirely appropriate. Sunray (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

German experience

Please use this link http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDiskussion%3AAuroville%23Erfahrungen_mit_Auroville&hl=de&ie=UTF8&sl=de&tl=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.116.123.128 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)